Kerala High Court
Muhammed Rafi M.C vs State Of Kerala on 8 November, 2024
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
RPJJ No.2 of 2024 1
2024:KER:83662
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA
FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024 / 17TH KARTHIKA, 1946
RPJJ NO. 2 OF 2024
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 05.10.2024 IN CMP NO.263 OF 2024 IN
CC NO.26 OF 2020 OF JUVANILE JUSTICE BOARD, THALASSERY
REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER/CCL NO.4:
MUHAMMED RAFI M.C, AGED 18 YEARS, S/O.LATHEEF M.C
KUYILANTHODI HOUSE, SIVAPURAM AMSOM, PADUPARA,
KANNUR DISTRICT, KERALA., PIN - 670702
BY ADV P.SAJU
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
SRI P M SHAMEER-GP
THIS REV.PETITION(JUVENILE JUSTICE) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 08.11.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RPJJ No.2 of 2024 2
2024:KER:83662
JUDGMENT
Devan Ramachandran J.
The petitioner impugns the order of the Juvenile Justice
Board, Thalassery (hereinafter referred to as "Board" for short),
to extent to which he has been asked to pay witness "batta" of
Rs.2,000/- each, as a condition to recall PW2 and PW4.
2. Sri.P.Saju - learned counsel for the petitioner, argued
that, since his client was charged in the matter as a Juvenile and
declared as a "Child in Conflict with Law", it was impermissible
and improper for the Board to have directed him to pay the
"batta", since statutorily this is to be honoured by the State. He,
therefore, prayed that the order impugned be set aside.
3. Sri.P.M.Shameer - learned Government Pleader, in
response, submitted that the "Board" has passed the order
impugned only because the petitioner has recalled the same
witness over and over again for cross examination. He pointed
out that, as has been recorded in the impugned order, the
witnesses are ordinary persons, depending upon their daily
2024:KER:83662
income; and that when they are denied the same, they ought to
be compensated. He, therefore, prayed that the order challenged
in this Revision Petition be left uninterdicted.
4. We have examined the order in question and find that
the "Board" has also recorded that PW2 & PW4 were cross-
examined at least once, if not more, in the past. However, while
allowing an application to recall them, we wonder how the
"Board" could have burdened the petitioner to pay the witness
batta, he having been earlier declared to be a "Child in Conflict
with Law". This is an issue that the "Board" ought to have
specifically considered.
5. We are, therefore, of the firm view that the question
of payment of batta is to be reconsidered by the "Board"; and to
that extent, we deem it necessary to intervene with Ext.P8. We,
however, clarify that, Ext.P8 in every other attribute, is left
uninterdicted.
Resultantly, we allow this Review Petition and set aside
that part of Ext.P8 order, which directs the petitioner to pay the
2024:KER:83662
batta of ₹2,000/- each to PW2 & PW4; with a consequential
direction to the "Board" to reconsider this aspect, particularly as
to who should suffer the burden in law.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
Sd/-
M.B.SNEHALATHA
JUDGE
SAS/sp/11/11/2024
